User talk:CameoAppearance

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 Image copyright problem with Image:Down-SimianCrease.jpg 2 love ur username 3 AFD 4 Yay 5 thanks for Brat! 6 Ahoy! 7 Thank you 8 WP:CHILD 9 Wikipedia:Protecting children's privacy 10 User:Royalguard11/Userbox personalities 11 Why did you remove your comment from Talk:Tranquility Bay? 12 Wait... 13 Thank You! 14 ASUE 15 I like your user page! 16 User Category for Discussion 17 Human Cloning

[edit] Image copyright problem with Image:Down-SimianCrease.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Down-SimianCrease.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 12:46, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] love ur username

cute! btw i looked at ur page and my fingers starting itching to align ur userboxes across the middle of ur page, instead of going down in a long column, but lots of people don't appreciate having their pages touched, so i'm not going to do anything. *twitches frantically* riana 11:50, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] AFD

As an inclusionist, please review Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of relationships with age disparity and please take a side.

[edit] Yay

Hooray for the userbox Macarion 00:29, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] thanks for Brat!

Hi there. I've been moving the article on Shade's Children slowly forward, and wanted to give you a quick thanks for adding the description of Brat, a minor character about whom I had nearly completely forgotten. :p It really helps! :) Have a nice day (or night, I don't remember the time conversion from Montreal to Vancouver.)

Nihiltres 04:49, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ahoy!

I saw you on JONJONAUG's page, and thought I'd say 'Hi'. Why am I not surprised you mention grammar edits as something you do? --AlmostReadytoFly 21:05, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thank you

Thanks for improving my userbox. --Gray Porpoise 19:58, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] WP:CHILD

There are a number of supporters for WP:CHILD, but by its talk page it's obvious there's at least as many opposers. That means that yes, there is a lack of consensus for this proposal, and per WP:POL, "a rejected proposal is any proposal that does not have consensual support, regardless of whether or not discussion is still ongoing". Unless consensus actually supports a proposal, the proposal fails (which, incidentally, happens to about 80% of proposals on the Wiki).

On a Wiki, changes do not generally have to be proposed; what I simply did was note the fact that there is no consensus for this proposal (nor will there likely be in the foreseeable future) and made a note of such on its page. >Radiant< 10:06, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

I understand that, but what I saw didn't seem to be outright rejection so much as either the process of discussion or an inability to decide. Now, again, I don't know how long discussion has to go on for such a thing to be decided, but this thing hasn't even been around for a full month. Surely it's reasonable to give the community more time for debate? CameoAppearance 12:16, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

There aren't really any formal rules about how long something has to be discussed (indeed, I've seen proposals closed after a day or two, usually on grounds that "nobody likes this except the proposer"). The thing is that there isn't really discussion about wording or specifics, but instead there is a significant number of people who object to the very principle. To implement a proposal, you'd have a strong majority of opinions supporting it; that is simply not the case here. >Radiant< 13:11, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

If you say so, I'm just saying that it doesn't really seem to have been actively rejected. I'm not as aware of the criteria for closing as you are. CameoAppearance ^orate 13:19, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Protecting children's privacy

Hi. You contributed to the discussion at Wikipedia:Protecting children's privacy. If you have the time and interest, I'm asking contributors to past a brief summary of their position on the proposal here, thanks. Herostratus 20:00, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User:Royalguard11/Userbox personalities

Sorry, I wasn't the one that changed it. It might be changed back too. It's a constantly changing essay. Although, there is now an official userbox to represent you view! Most talk about it is happening on WT:UBM under new essay. -Royalguard11(Talk·Desk) 04:31, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

*shrug* It's not a big deal, really. I just wanted to indicate what I'd be under the new categories. CameoAppearance ^orate 04:39, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Why did you remove your comment from Talk:Tranquility Bay?

You made a statement implying that you were going to improve the article, but then removed it. Why? CameoAppearance ^orate 17:10, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

The edit summary was "nm" - short for "never mind." I was busy with schoolwork and couldn't catch the documentary I could've used as a source. --Kizor 17:44, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wait...

...if you're Canadian how did the FBI get your flux capacitor? 68.39.174.238 07:08, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, they basically just looked like a couple of dudes in black suits and sunglasses. They could've been FBI, CIA, CSIS, MIB... CameoAppearance ^orate 09:29, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thank You!

Thank you for your input at my RFA, which successfully closed at 58/2/0. I will think about the 10 questions and answers I had, and I hope that I will use the tools constructively and for the benefit of Wikipedia. If you ever need any help, don't be afraid to drop me a line. I'm here to help afterall! ‎Template:Emot -Royalguard11(Talk·Desk·Review Me!) 23:54, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] ASUE

Hello, CameoAppearance and thank you for your contributions on articles related to A Series of Unfortunate Events. I'd like to invite you to become a part of WikiProject A Series of Unfortunate Events, a WikiProject aiming to improve coverage of A Series of Unfortunate Events and related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to help out and participate, please visit the project page for more information. Thanks! <3Clamster 15:15, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] I like your user page!

How did you create all those cool biographical things down the side? Cheers! - Wikiwag 14:31, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] User Category for Discussion

[edit] Human Cloning

I think I have an answer for you. Of course, it would be best if an actual conservative could tell you, but here's what I gather:

To the best of my understanding, conservatives object to therapeutic cloning (creation of replacement tissues, such as cloning just a liver or just a heart) because it uses up a whole embryo, which they believe would otherwise develop into a whole human being. They object to reproductive cloning (the creation of a new organism, such as Dolly, a cloned racehorse, or a cloned baby) because of the risks. Creating a human clone, even one that the parents intend to raise like any other child, would involve the loss of as many or more human embryos than the sheep embryos that it took to make Dolly. In other words, I think that conservatives object to reproductive cloning for the same reason that they object to fertility clinics: they don't like how many embryos go down the drain.

So, hypothetically, if we could perfect the process to the point where the cells intended for organ growth never went through a totipotent stage or to the point where only one human embryo would be needed to create a baby, the conservatives would no longer object. However, I haven't heard them lining up behind the use of PGA to create new human embryonic stem cell lines (This process doesn't destroy embryos; it just takes a little sample), so there are probably more layers to this issue than I can see on the surface. Darkfrog24 18:13, 8 March 2007 (UTC)